“Though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back… she would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward.” - Aslan, C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Recently Tried in the Court of Public Opinion

Showing posts with label unlawful assessment coordination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unlawful assessment coordination. Show all posts

Chromatic v Issa: On the Misconstruction of Disability Disclosures and the Institutional Myth of Non-Engagement


✒️ A Very Serious Filing Concerning the Incurable Procedural Misunderstandings of Ms. Samira Issa

Re: Miscommunications, Misconduct, and Misconceptions of Care in the Context of Eosinophilic Asthma and Bureaucratic Gaslighting

IN THE MATTER OF: Samira Issa, Social Worker, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Filed in: The Mirror Court of Institutional Regret
Filed by: Polly Chromatic, Litigant in Person, Procedural Intermediary, and Surviving Mother
Court File Name: 2025-07-28_CriminalFiling_SamiraIssa_ObstructionAndDisabilityMisuse.pdf
Filed Date: 28 July 2025

I. What Happened

Over a sustained period, Ms. Samira Issa—acting in her official capacity as a social worker under RBKC Children’s Services—engaged in a pattern of email obfuscation, medical dismissal, and institutional gaslighting. Despite being provided with detailed medical documentation regarding eosinophilic asthma, PTSD, and speech-related disability, Ms. Issa repeatedly failed to accommodate or even acknowledge lawful communication needs.

Her emails — documented extensively in this submission — reveal not only a refusal to understand but a wilful campaign to ignore written disclosures, undermine lawful care rights, and escalate safeguarding frameworks with utter disregard for proportionality, due process, or humanity.

II. What the Complaint Establishes

  1. Unlawful obstruction of assessments and accommodations, deliberately reframed to portray the mother as “non-compliant.”

  2. Medical and disability discrimination, particularly in the form of ignoring asthma crisis patterns and communication needs.

  3. Abandonment of role as a welfare professional in favour of adversarial tactics, contradictory reporting, and institutional blame games.

  4. Failure to understand the difference between “a mother attempting to explain her child’s oxygen needs” and “a safeguarding threat.”

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the phrase “I’m allergic to hostility” is not metaphorical when the mother in question has severe eosinophilic asthma.
Because providing exhaustive evidence on asthma, dysphonia, and trauma does not constitute “non-engagement.”
Because it is both tragic and laughable that an individual entrusted with children’s care cannot interpret a basic sentence like: "Please respond in writing to accommodate my disability."

IV. Violations

  • Children Act 1989 – s.22(4) & s.17: failure to support the child's welfare and the parent's lawful care role

  • Equality Act 2010 – s.15 & s.20: discrimination arising from disability; failure to make reasonable adjustments

  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

  • Article 8 ECHR – interference with family life through misused safeguarding powers

  • GDPR & DPA 2018 – mishandling of sensitive data and coercive requests for unnecessary disclosures

V. SWANK’s Position

Samira Issa is now a documented figure in the evidentiary catalogue of abuse. The correspondence she maintained—one part denial, two parts evasion—has earned her the professional dishonour of being named in a formal Letter of Information and referred for criminal misconduct, obstruction, and disability-based safeguarding misuse.

She is therefore invited to reflect upon the difference between “assessment coordination” and “institutional harassment,” preferably with legal counsel present.

This filing is hereby entered into the SWANK Evidentiary Catalogue
— where coercion is spell-checked, safeguarding is scrutinised, and disability dismissal is not tolerated.

🪞 We file what others forget.
✒️ Polly Chromatic, Director, SWANK London Ltd

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.
No comments: